None intended. It was just rather amusing to see you do the kind of thing some Christian fundamentalists are infamous for :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I didn't realize I was quoting one of the books of the Hebrew bible.

That is not the problem, since that is included in the Christian bible. The problem is that you quite literally picked the first thing that you found, and then went on to use it as the sole basis for your interpretation, without considering its intended audience, historial context, textual context, or cross referencing any related verses.

This can work for personal scripture reading, or even a bible study group, but it is far from a systematic approach to using scripture as the basis for doctrinal development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But you stance does trouble me, laserlight. You cannot just "wash your hands" from the free interpretation of the scriptures and accommodate only that wish is more convenient to your views or your desire to defend the faith.

wish -> which?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It's exactly because of this, exactly because of the problem the Bible presents to all of its readers as being a puzzling book (at best) and a false book (at worst) that the church "invented" dogma.

Not really: it is precisely because of the problem of interpretation that the church invented bible scholars, theologians, and the bishops who have the final say. It is not that very much different from say, the use of a judiciary to interpret a constitution or other written set of laws, except that this time the "constitution" happens to consist in part of "fairy tales", various sayings, historical records of unknown accuracy, and various letters and recountings of purported and then-recent history, and events that may come to pass. Oh, and sets of laws and other rules and guidelines given to various peoples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I can find the same amount of symbolism and muddiness in any of Nostradamus illustrations, why aren't they accepted by you? Are those who think of Nostradamus as a true prophet less deserving of your acceptance? By your dogma, yes. But what about reason? What does reason say to someone who follows a dogma? Why should that be wrong and this be right?

I think your questions boil down to: why are you Christian, in particular Roman Catholic, and why do you follow what your religion teaches instead of something else? To summarise an answer: given that the apostles testified on pain of death to the resurrection, I find it probable that Christ resurrected. Combined with personal spiritual experience within the Catholic Church, and impressed by its continuity, unity and coherence yet the diversity of its theology and spirituality, I conclude that it is most probable that the Catholic Church is my best option, and thus I consider it sensible to follow my option's teachings, otherwise I might as well choose a different option, or come up with my own set of beliefs concerning Christ.

01-25-2010

C_ntua

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

The truth was never in their God, because he does not exist no matter how hard or how many members of a given species want to believe that he does. Gods are one of the means by which religions usurp rational authority.

Existence is what you believe exists. Except if you have a better definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

You are not quoting words of God, which is the only source of "unquestioned" truth. Add that homosexuality didn't exist in those days and you can get an idea why the above isn't that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

I can find the same amount of symbolism and muddiness in any of Nostradamus illustrations, why aren't they accepted by you? Are those who think of Nostradamus as a true prophet less deserving of your acceptance? By your dogma, yes. But what about reason? What does reason say to someone who follows a dogma? Why should that be wrong and this be right?

There is no wrong and right. Just a belief. As there is with everything. Wrong and right are just words that don't mean anything by themselves.
Why each one believes in something is another story.
And lets not forget that nobody has purely his "own" idea. That is simply not possible.

01-25-2010

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

That is not the problem, since that is included in the Christian bible. The problem is that you quite literally picked the first thing that you found, and then went on to use it as the sole basis for your interpretation, without considering its intended audience, historial context, textual context, or cross referencing any related verses.

Wait a minute. You are passing judgment?
Do not even presume I used the first thing that I picked up. Instead you can accuse me of having used the quote that better suited me for the purpose at hand. It's a fair accusation, it's a true accusation and it's also a useless accusation. But on matters of the bible, trust me when I say you and I can most probably discuss it on equal footing.

As for the actual Leviticus book, the issue of God addressing the Israelis is probably the matter of contention between Catholics who do not take this book in its entirety. Arguably, I cannot remember many aspects of it, but my Roman Catholic Bible, for instance does not include 3 chapters of this book for instance.

01-25-2010

MK27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The notion that all religious followers are lying to themselves is too easy to be true. As someone who has been on both sides of the fence, I remember distinctly what it meant to believe in a god. There was no sense of falsehood, no doubt even. It felt right, righteous, and it made sense.

I've believed some very bizarre things in my life, by intention -- eg, once I decided to see if I could convince myself that alien life occupies earth and always has.* I succeeded, which is to say I came up with perfectly convincing ways to interpret even minor details of normal everyday life such that the presence of aliens was a better and more complete explanation of things that I took for granted with little or no explanation. It did not take long for me to consider my explanation as deduction, and that the aliens had revealed themselves to me. Very honestly, I lived with very little doubt in that state for months. I was not a kid either, that was in my early thirties. I still consider this an amazing period of time -- later on I managed to reindulge again, altho it did not last as long. It is a little exhausting, mentally, however, and can get in the way of thinking about more serious and important things. And, of course, it comes to dominate your emotional state and reactions to real events (for better or worse). But totally interesting to me, since up to that point I had always be a more or less scientific rational, athiethistic, WYSIWYG thinker.

I'm not saying that to belittle God or faith, I'm saying it because you are right Mario, I am sure plenty of sane, intelligent people really do believe in God and someone saying he does not exist will not change that.

However, one thing I do not believe is that this faith in a divine power can be extended so far as to make otherwise sane and intelligent people believe things like:

- slavery is okay
- blowing yourself up in a supermarket serves God
- women are not capable of higher thought
- everyone else's sexual practices should be subject to your scrutiny and interpreted in light of very convoluted revelations

These things are political, and in this case I would say either a) the person is lying and malicous, b) the person is indifferent and nihilistic, towing a line, c) the person is exceptionally stupid, or d) the person is not of sound mind and should not be considered a sane, rational adult.

* just thinking about it now I can't find any good reason (beyond occam's razor, which is in fact a very important rational principle) to not believe that.

01-25-2010

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_ntua

>> If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

You are not quoting words of God, which is the only source of "unquestioned" truth. Add that homosexuality didn't exist in those days and you can get an idea why the above isn't that simple.

What on earth are you talking about? Have you ever read Leviticus, 20? It starts with "And the Lord Said to Moses". And what's that about homosexuality not existing back then?

Oh my God! Can it be I discovered a true hypocrite. I demand salvage rights!

01-25-2010

laserlight

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Existence is what you believe exists. Except if you have a better definition.

You might believe that something exists, but merely be deluded as in fact it does not exist. For example, suppose that the God that I believe exists actually does not exist. For my intents and purposes I may behave as if he exists, but in fact I would be deluded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_ntua

You are not quoting words of God, which is the only source of "unquestioned" truth.

Sorry, but what do you mean by "words of God"? On what basis do you say that these "words of God" are 'the only source of "unquestioned" truth'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Add that homosexuality didn't exist in those days and you can get an idea why the above isn't that simple.

The above is probably a debatable statement, but yes, it is not that simple. But with respect to this thread, does this issue really matter?

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Wait a minute. You are passing judgment?
Do not even presume I used the first thing that I picked up. Instead you can accuse me of having used the quote that better suited me for the purpose at hand. It's a fair accusation, it's a true accusation and it's also a useless accusation. But on matters of the bible, trust me when I say you and I can most probably discuss it on equal footing.

I would accuse you of derailing on your own thread with something that does not matter. So what if you and I can discuss this on equal footing? It would not matter even if you were a bible scholar. As far as I can tell, you just picked up a verse at random. If you had thought about it more clearly, you would not even have bothered to post that part, since as you say it is a useless accusation. It simply cannot be properly backed up by what you posted, no matter how much thought you put into it.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

- women are not capable of higher thought

Except Judit Polgar. (Just kidding :) )

01-25-2010

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

I would accuse you of derailing on your own thread with something that does not matter. So what if you and I can discuss this on equal footing? It would not matter even if you were a bible scholar. As far as I can tell, you just picked up a verse at random. If you had thought about it more clearly, you would not even have bothered to post that part, since as you say it is a useless accusation. It simply cannot be properly backed up by what you posted, no matter how much thought you put into it.

As far as you can tell I picked a verse. You cannot tell I picked one at random. That's an accusation. If this particular verse bothers you, it does for very obvious reasons. It's the word of God as passed to to the Israelis by Moses. It's in the bible. The book we are told to read. And it speaks of murder.

For your information, the Roman Catholic Bible changed the wording slightly and says something like "They should surely die and their blood be upon them", which indicates to me they shall fall victim to death at the hand of men and its law. Their blood will not be upon anyone's but themselves.

If you do not find this relevant for the discussion of homosexuality and the Catholic Church, I accuse you of demagogy. You could argue this is not how the church sees it these days. It has toned down their stance. I will agree. But it is no less relevant because it speaks of God's views of homosexuality and clearly indicates a source for the current position.

And so you go back to where I make that quote and read it as it was intended. The 5th book of the First testament where homosexuality is first addressed and the evolution to this day catholic doctrine on this matter as found on the Catechism.

Edit:
Pardon, the 3rd book of the first testament. Not the 5th

01-25-2010

laserlight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

As far as you can tell I picked a verse. You cannot tell I picked one at random.

You gave me that impression, unfortunately, due to the phrase "a quick google search". When I use that phrase when answering a question asked on this messageboard, it means that I picked one of the first few results and presented it to the question asker. I believe several of us here do the same (or else they just give a nice link that illustrates the process to the reader :) ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If this particular verse bothers you, it does for very obvious reasons. It's the word of God as passed to to the Israelis by Moses. It's in the bible. The book we are told to read. And it speaks of murder.

Now it is your turn to accuse me :)

No, that the bible speaks of murder is too well known for it to bother me. What bothers me, and which I thought would have been more obvious, is the phrase "convenient interpretations". In other words, it seems to me that you were trying to say that by not requiring that those who engage in homosexual acts be put to death, the Catholic Church has invalidated its own position.

This is what I find to be irrelevant: we're going to have to examine the various scriptural and theological arguments for and against the specific proscription of death, but in the end the conclusion is still going to be that homosexuality is sinful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

For your information, the Roman Catholic Bible changed the wording slightly and says something like "They should surely die and their blood be upon them", which indicates to me they shall fall victim to death at the hand of men and its law. Their blood will not be upon anyone's but themselves.

By "Roman Catholic Bible" you mean the Jerusalem Bible? My Catholic edition NRSV reads "they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them". In all three translations it seems to me that the written meaning is the same, so I see no fault in the re-wording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If you do not find this relevant for the discussion of homosexuality and the Catholic Church, I accuse you of demagogy. You could argue this is not how the church sees it these days. It has toned down their stance. I will agree. But it is no less relevant because it speaks of God's views of homosexuality and clearly indicates a source for the current position.

Ah, but if your point is that there is scriptural support for the church's position on homosexuality, albeit toned down from what it inherited, then yes, I certainly agree that that is relevant for the discussion of homosexuality. It indicates that it is more difficult for the pro-homosexual camp within the Catholic Church to argue against the doctrine.

Unless... your point is that it may be possible for the position to be toned down to the point where homosexuality is accepted? It seems possible to me if they had come to such a conclusion earlier, but now it may be too late... unless the pope admits that papal infallability was a bad idea (i.e., if I remember correctly the bishops have never collectively affirmed that homosexuality is 100% wrong), or that it was never actually exercised in this case (i.e., despite the statements by the Catechism, the pope never actually spoke ex cathedra on this topic).

01-25-2010

MK27

Sorry to interrupt: this just fell on my plate, which is sort of bizarre considering all this talk of exegesis and Leviticus (maybe there is a God!):

(altho IMO shrimp have both fins and scales -- maybe it should have been "God hates oysters")

01-25-2010

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

You gave me that impression, unfortunately, due to the phrase "a quick google search". When I use that phrase when answering a question asked on this messageboard, it means that I picked one of the first few results and presented it to the question asker. I believe several of us here do the same (or else they just give a nice link that illustrates the process to the reader :) ).

Ah, ok. That makes sense. By "quick google search" I was referring to the collection of Bible quotes one could acquire on this subject. Just that.

But in fact I did a google search for that quote because I needed to know what would be the first reference to homosexuality on the bible and it would be a lengthy process searching for this on the book itself.

Quote:

No, that the bible speaks of murder is too well known for it to bother me. What bothers me, and which I thought would have been more obvious, is the phrase "convenient interpretations". In other words, it seems to me that you were trying to say that by not requiring that those who engage in homosexual acts be put to death, the Catholic Church has invalidated its own position.

Well, no. But close.

I mean, I do not presume by changing the penalty, the church invalidated their position. Quite on the contrary. The references in the bible are very revealing of why the church thinks of homosexuality the way it does. The "convenient interpretation" speaks however of how the word of God on that verse had to be dealt with in this day and age where a death penalty for homosexuality is out of the question in the minds of all. That verse cannot apply. But it's impossible to ignore either.

You cannot ignore the dramatic changes between Leviticus book and the current Catechism.

Quote:

By "Roman Catholic Bible" you mean the Jerusalem Bible? My Catholic edition NRSV reads "they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them". In all three translations it seems to me that the written meaning is the same, so I see no fault in the re-wording.

The first bible I picked after you first commented on this matter reads "they will be punished by death and they will take their blame with them". This I read as a divine punishment. The bible is the Portuguese edition from Almeida, 1995 edition revised, Catholic Version.

Then I picked an english Bible (John Nelson Darby, 1980 edition) I got way back in Canada offered to me by a friend who thought it would annoy me on account of my constant rants on the catholic church. It reads "they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them." Which to me seems to indicate the punishment shall be executed by men.

Finally I went to Young's Literal edition of 1862 (this one shamefully stolen from an hotel room), which also reads (and which I quoted) "They should surely die and their blood be upon them".

Now, being this the old testament I'm more inclined to accept the Almeida version as being closer to the true meaning of the punishment. I cannot conceived the idea that God passed on to the Israelis an order to execute homosexuals caught in the act. It feels more correct to assume He would punish them Himself.

Admittedly I made a big mess of the quotes. It's the Almeida quote I wished to make just the post before this.

Quote:

Ah, but if your point is that there is scriptural support for the church's position on homosexuality, albeit toned down from what it inherited, then yes, I certainly agree that that is relevant for the discussion of homosexuality. It indicates that it is more difficult for the pro-homosexual camp within the Catholic Church to argue against the doctrine.

Precisely my point. I only wished I had your skills at summing it up.

There's is nothing to argue about concerning the doctrine itself. The church position is consistent and well supported, albeit toned down during the years.

But here lies the problem with the church. It's incapacity to change their doctrine, even when supported by dogma, is slowly revealing it's dark nature of intolerance as societies around it slowly evolve morally towards an higher level of tolerance and acceptance.

No longer the Church champions ethical and moral values. Governments compete with it, as do human rights institutions in their several forms. The church is being left behind and as these organizations prove themselves far more adaptable and capable at understanding and reacting to intolerance and injustice, the church own intolerance is revealed.

Quote:

Unless... your point is that it may be possible for the position to be toned down to the point where homosexuality is accepted? It seems possible to me if they had come to such a conclusion earlier, but now it may be too late... unless the pope admits that papal infallability was a bad idea (i.e., if I remember correctly the bishops have never collectively affirmed that homosexuality is 100% wrong), or that it was never actually exercised in this case (i.e., despite the statements by the Catechism, the pope never actually spoke ex cathedra on this topic).

It's my view that it will eventually happen. The church will eventually adopt Dogma as the sole source of its doctrine. And this will open the doors for the acceptance of homosexuality. I do not expect however this to happen anytime soon. It's a revolution. It needs the right pope, the right college of cardinals and a lot of social pressure and convoluted times for the church. None of which are a reality still.

And since you speak of it, do notice that papal infallibility not only will be protected by, but actually strengthened by the adoption of Dogma as the sole source of doctrine.

01-25-2010

laserlight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Now, being this the old testament I'm more inclined to accept the Almeida version as being closer to the true meaning of the punishment. I cannot conceived the idea that God passed on to the Israelis an order to execute homosexuals caught in the act. It feels more correct to assume He would punish them Himself.

I am not so sure. Consider verse 2 of that same chapter: in the Catholic edition of the NRSV, it states that "the people of the land shall stone them to death". Given the context, it seems reasonable to interpret verse 13 as an instruction to put to death those who were caught in the act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The church will eventually adopt Dogma as the sole source of its doctrine.

I am not sure what you mean by that. By definition, dogma is "a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church". Perhaps you are trying to say that eventually the Catholic Church will stop defining as dogma doctrine that has developed from the "grassroots" (i.e., by theologians and scholars who engage in debate about doctrine and theology that is not yet defined as dogma), but rather only adopt as dogma doctrine that has been developed at the level of the pope and eminent bishops?

01-25-2010

DavidP

Quote:

Quote by brewbuck:
If anything threatens the institution of marriage it's a 50% divorce rate.

I agree that that is an extremely alarming statistic in regards to marriage.

I can't believe I've been missing such a great discussion! I've tried to read the entire thread before writing my response, but 5 pages is a lot of posts to read...

In my response, I will refer to and quote directly from a speech given by Dallin H. Oaks at Brigham Young University Idaho. Because the speech was directed towards a very different audience then those that are here on the CBoard, I'll try and only quote sections that are really relevant to the discussion at hand.

In addition, I quote from this speech because the speaker conveys my own opinion in a much more masterful way than I could ever hope to put down in writing.

Quote:

Quote by Mario F:
Read the Letter of Human Rights. And possibly read even your own country constitution, which more than likely -- and just like mine own -- makes it clear stopping homosexuals from getting married is in fact against the constitution.

Quote from the above linked speech:

Truly, this nation’s most important export is its constitution, whose great principles stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all flesh"...One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution...is the principle that the people are the source of government power. This principle of popular sovereignty was first written and applied on the American continent over 200 years ago...[They created] the first written constitution that has survived to govern a modern nation.

The most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to another...This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part”...

“For the rights and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press...The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.” The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”

...In a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs...The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom...

Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion...Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way: "There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States...For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening."

Quote:

Quote by Memloop:
Either way, marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it should in the eyes of the government only be a legal contract, and as such the church should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote from the above linked speech:

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members...Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Quote:

Quote by Mario F:
Where the segregation happens is in the way this stance is conducted, the arguments used for it and the public speeches done against it...This type of behavior is racist and intolerant. By speaking to the hearts and souls of their fellow church members in national TV against an whole community of citizens and condemning a political decision in their favor, the catholic church acts as any other racist leader urging his hordes against the subhumans in their society.

Quote from the above linked speech:

We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity.

As advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.

01-25-2010

Mario F.

Yes. That's my interpretation of "Dogma".

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

I am not so sure. Consider verse 2 of that same chapter: in the Catholic edition of the NRSV, it states that "the people of the land shall stone them to death". Given the context, it seems reasonable to interpret verse 13 as an instruction to put to death those who were caught in the act.

It's a good point. The Almeida agrees with that translation. Its however a curious verse. It does not include the word "death". It could almost be seen as a different type of punishment since all others mention death explicitly but never by the hand of men. But we do seem to know stoning was a death penalty at that time. So, there's not much room anymore for my argument.

01-25-2010

Mario F.

I did wonder several times where you were DavidP. I know this debate would be of interest to you.

Anyway, I've read you post and it disappointed me. Admittedly you confessed you didn't read the whole thread. I suggest you do. A large portion of Dallin H. Oaks speech is exactly the type of thing that is being discussed here. You should then be able to get more to the point. Otheerwise you will force me to repeat my arguments.

01-25-2010

C_ntua

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

You might believe that something exists, but merely be deluded as in fact it does not exist. For example, suppose that the God that I believe exists actually does not exist. For my intents and purposes I may behave as if he exists, but in fact I would be deluded.

Yes, but somethings can be proven to exist. For example, if I take a black box and tell you "there is a flower inside" then you might believe and trust me. And believe the flower exists. But want day you can open it without my permision (tsk tsk tsk) and find out you are deluded. The fault is your in the first place, because you believed that the flower existed, didn't prove it.
To prove an existence of an object, you go to how you define the "existence" of an object. As most people you would say as long as you perceive it with your senses, or another sensor, it exits. You didn't perceive in the first place, you just trusted me.

Now, lets use God's existence. How would you define the "existence of a God". You cannot use any sensor. It is debatable how you would define the "existence of God". Personally, I define it as just a strong belief, God exists because you want him to exist. Using that definition I can never be deluded.

Note, that it is not only God that can be proven to exist. If you had seen the flower it would be proven as well. It just happens that the "belief in a God" and the "existence of God" are actually very similar, if not identical meanings. The same cannot be said as a flower.

Except if, again, there is a better definition of the "existence of God"

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Sorry, but what do you mean by "words of God"? On what basis do you say that these "words of God" are 'the only source of "unquestioned" truth'?

Words that God, either Father God, or Jesus Christ God, directly said. Or words that he said through prophets, like "God told me that...". Or actions of god, like "As Jesus showed as by doing...". This is different by an apostole giving an advise in a certain matter.
Some might believe that whatever Apostole Paul said was exactly what God wants. I believe that he was inspired in a divine way from God. Meaning that the basic meaning of what he said is True.
For example, that there is "immorality in sex" I believe is inspired directly of God. But how he would word this inspiration, how he explain it and understood it was up to Apostole Paul. Which is fine. Except for matters like homosexuality. Because they didn't exist at that point of time. Meaning that when Apostole Paul was speaking (if he was actually speaking about them) about sex between the same sex, he probably had heterosexuals having sex with themselves, an act that he describes unatural, and most people would absolutely agree.
The difference from God and Apostole Paul is that the second is not "all knowing". He doesn't know the future. If Jesue Christ had said something about homosexuality, then you could argue that he knew the future. His words are the words of God, so he spoke of them for future generations as well. You get my general point.

It doesn't really matter. My intention is not to analyze a theological matter. That is why I make this seperation of "words of God". Or anything else that is not debatable.